People v. Drill

• Decision Date: 29 July 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:11-cv-402
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v. MILWAUKEE 3/8" CORDLESS DRILL et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v. MILWAUKEE 3/8" CORDLESS DRILL et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-402

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 29, 2011

Honorable Paul L. Maloney

OPINION

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner, Christopher Burnell Thompson. In his original pleading, Christopher Burnell Thompson purported to remove a state action. The original pleading that named the People of the State of Michigan as the Plaintiff and named a variety of personal property and several individuals as the Defendants. Christopher Burnell Thompson, the only person to sign the complaint, purported to be an interested party and a petitioner in the action. His father, Burnell James Thompson was listed as another interested party.

On May 20, 2011, Christopher Burnell Thompson filed an amended complaint (docket #13). The amended complaint was construed and docketed as a motion to amend the complaint, because Christopher Burnell Thompson initially had captioned his action as a petition for removal, and, in that posture, he had no authority to amend the complaint.

The original action, however, was never properly considered a removal action because Christopher Burnell Thompson was not a party defendant to the state case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (permitting removal of state actions only by defendants). Instead, the complaint was anindependent civil action on a variety of conflicting theories. As a consequence, construing Plaintiff's complaint liberally, as it must, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court construed the pleading as an original civil action, not a removed action, and it granted Christopher Burnell Thompson leave to proceed in forma pauperis based on that understanding (docket #14). Because a plaintiff may file one amended complaint as a matter of right, see FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a), the motion to amend (docket #13) is granted. The amended complaint shall hereafter be recognized as the controlling pleading in this action.

In his amended complaint, Christopher Burnell Thompson and Burnell James Thompson are listed as Plaintiffs, and, together with the previously identified personal property, certain individuals are named as Defendants. The amended complaint, like the original complaint, is signed only by Christopher Burnell Thompson. The action purports to be brought under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333, 1337, and 2461, and under the removal provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(d), 1443, and 1446. Thompson also asserts jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. No. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim.

Factual Allegations

Plaintiff Christopher Burnell Thompson names as Defendants in this action a variety of personal property and the following named parties: Mecosta County; the Central Michigan Enforcement Team (CMET); Big Rapids Police Officer Eric Little; Mecosta County Jail Officer Richard Updick; Mecosta County Jail Officer Nicole Hahn; Defense Attorney Dennis Duvall, Jr.; and unknown security bonds and insurance companies.

The amended action filed by Christopher Burnell Thompson begins with convoluted assertions of jurisdiction, as follows (verbatim):

NOW COMES, Christopher Burnell Thompson, hereinafter 'Petitioner' and Secured Party Creditor to the above mentioned cause, making a 'restricted visitation' pursuant to Admiralty and Maritime Rule E(8), for the specific purpose to Remove State Court action to Federal Court within Admiralty, Article III to enforce rights in the federal Court that have been denied by the State Court and where Secured Party cannot enforce specific rights in State Court. . . .

a. ) Jurisdiction founded on Diversity of Citizenship

Plaintiff is the 'PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN' an artificial person, an agency incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan having its principal place of business in the State of Michigan with prosecutor office claiming to be real party in interest. Defendant is items of property pursuant to an in rem action. 1st Interested Party is Burnell James Thompson claiming an interest in the Tahoe 50" Plasma T.V.. and is an U.S. citizen. 2nd Interested Party is a Third Party Interest Intervenor and Realator - Real Party in Interest - Secured Party Creditor Christopher Burnell Thompson with is also an American National and a living flesh in blood actual man.

b. ) Jurisdiction founded on the Existence of a Federal Question.

The Removal action arises under Title 28 U.S.C. §1441(d)(b), §1443, §1446; 15 Statutes at Large (chap 249, July 27, 1868, 40th Congress and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Public Law 94-583, 28 U.S.C. §1602 - 1611)). under the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 1; Article 1, Section 10, 'THE IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT' and the D/C/ Codes; the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment(s) to the Constitution of the United States for the United States of Amerca: as hereinafter more fully appears.

Whether Title 28 U.S.C §1351 extends to my father Burnell James Thompson for protection.

c. ) Jurisdiction Founded on the Existence of a Question Arising Under Particular Statutes.

The action arises under the Federal rules of Evidence Rule 302 and Michigan Compiled Law Statute 333.7521(c)(iv); and the Uniform Commercial Codes 9-101 et seq., as hereinafter more fully appears.

d. ) Jurisdiction Founded on the Admiralty or Maritime Character of the Claim.

This is a case of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, Title 28 U.S.C. §1333; Venue is proper for an in rem action involving a natural person a Secured Party Creditor being deprived of rights which were intentionally denied and cannot be enforced in the State Court. 28 U.S.C. §2461 and §2463.

(Am. Compl., docket #13, Page ID#93.) With the exception of these jurisdictional allegations and statements regarding the nature of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint appear to fall into two general sets of facts: one set involving Christopher Burnell Thompson, and the other set involving Burnell James Thompson.

In the first set of allegations, Plaintiff asserts that, on October 14, 2010, the apartment of his father, Burnell James Thompson, was illegally searched by CMET. Burnell Thompson was arrested on an unrelated misdemeanor warrant. During the search, CMET confiscated certain household goods that were being stored in the house for Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he has an interest in the property as a secured party creditor. (Id., Page ID##93-94, 101-02.) Those goods were included in a Mecosta County forfeiture action for the property of Burnell Thompson, initiated because Burnell Thompson allegedly acquired the property through drug proceeds. Plaintiff Christopher Burnell Thompson sought to intervene in the forfeiture action by filing a "'Petition in the Nature of a Motion to Dismiss 12(b)(6)' with a bona fide Security Interest," claiming that thetaking of the property violated MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.7521(1)(d)(iv).¹ (Id., Page ID#94.) A telephone conference was held on the motion on April 4, 2011. Judge Ronald Nichols apparently became angered by Plaintiff's failure to answer a question and Plaintiff's participation in the telephonic hearing was terminated. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Nichols, by his conduct,

intentionally denied Christopher Burnell Thompson of His right to His Creditor rights, impairing contract i.e., Security Agreement Exhibit B, depriving Christopher Burnell Thompson of His property without due process, deprivation to access to the court and right to redress of gr[ie]vance and the right to be heard, intentionally violating God given rights, creditor rights, and Constitutional rights in the State Court.

(Id., Page ID#94.)

Plaintiff Christopher Burnell Thompson also alleges that the actions of the state court in prosecuting him, sentencing him to an eight to fifty-year sentence, and converting his property arose out of "racial discrimination against Christopher Burnell Thompson's religious beliefs, and persecution for withdrawing from the trannical [sic] Union." (Id., Page ID#95; see also Page ID#114) On his own behalf, he raises both common-law and Michigan statutory claims of conversion against CMET, Eric Little, Mecosta County and its agents. Further, he contends that he was denied due process and his creditor rights when Judge Nichols denied him the opportunity to participate in the April 4, 2011 telephone hearing on the motion filed by his father, entitled "Petition in the Nature of a Motion to Dismiss (12)(b)(6)." (Id., Page ID#116.)

Plaintiff Christopher Thompson alleges that he has an absolute right to remove the forfeiture action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, and 1446, the Foreign SovereignImmunities Act, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, his secured-party property interests, and Article 1, sections 1 and 10 of the United States Constitition.

The second set of allegations concerns the treatment of Plaintiff's father, Burnell James Thompson. Plaintiff alleges that his father was arrested on October 14, 2010. On October 15, 2010, Burnell Thompson was permitted to use an oxygen machine and nebulizer machine that were...